It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Apollo 12's Covert EVA , Are E.T.'s the reason for the Secrecy ?

page: 22
37
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


yea 10-4 ,

this is the best image taken from the LM's position showing the Surveyor craft ?? WHAT ?


history.nasa.gov...

nice clear image isn't it ?

:shk:







yea i don't know what's funnier ,

someone believing a Executive order would actually say to obfuscate imagery or ziggystar60 trying to prove NASA isn't hiding anything with that LRO pic !!! ROTFL



[edit on 10-2-2010 by easynow]




posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

nice clear image isn't it ?


Well look at it this way - perhaps if we could get some clearer images from this position, we'd only end up even more confused.

Heck, we could wind up being called Moon Hoax Proponents just for talking about this!




posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Hey, easynow, I cropped the image some more for you. Now that the spacecraft is completely gone, perhaps you can use the crop to prove that the Apollo 11 Moon landing was all just a hoax anyway and never happened.



I'm just kidding. But I guess you're right... Nobody can believe that the LROC photo I posted shows the Apollo 11 landing site. It's not like you can see the Double crater to the left of the LM descent stage or the LRRR equipment or the tracks from the astronauts walking around or even Little West crater to the right in the larger versions of the photo...

No, it's probably just a rock. Or a giant lunar turtle.
It can definetely NOT be the LM descent stage and the scientific equipment left behind... Cause nothing in that photo adds up with what is supposed to be there at the landing site anyway...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

I'll leave it up to you to figure out what those thingies in that LROC photo are, then. I give up.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 



the Apollo 11 Moon landing was all just a hoax


ziggy in case you didn't notice, this thread isn't about the Moon hoax theory and the opening post contends that we did land there so i really don't understand the point your trying to make


i believe we did land on the Moon but i have doubts about some of the images supposedly taken on the surface during the missions. and no that doesn't mean i think they are all fake.

now i am guessing you posted what you did on the last page back to counter argue that NASA can't be hiding anything because the LRO images are so great ? was that your intentions ? if it was then you really don't have a leg to stand on because the LRO images have enough resolution to show some detail but not enough to discern the difference between a rock and a spacecraft. and yes those are the Apollo landing sites and we know what those blurry objects are because of the location but if there was a spacecraft or something else that wasn't in a known landing area then you would not be able to tell what the object really is.


one more time...

if this object was NOT in one of the known landing areas you wouldn't know what it is !!!
why can't you understand that ?




OR

maybe you have some psychic abilities that we don't know about ?





[edit on 10-2-2010 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

if this object was NOT in one of the known landing areas you wouldn't know what it is !!!
why can't you understand that ?

[/IMG]
[edit on 10-2-2010 by easynow]


Hm... I don't know. But the way you ask makes me think that it's probably cause I'm really, REALLY stoopid. Am I right? Do I win a cookie?

Listen, you posted a LROC photo with what was basically just a black dot. I have already agreed with you that it was not easy to see that it was a Apollo space craft. I posted another LROC photo where it is rather, well... obvious that the thing we see is the LM descent stage, if you take into account all the available information about the Apollo 11 landing site. (And not just crop out some part of the photo, for instance, like you did, haha.)

But I guess that is the problem... You can not take information provided by NASA into account, because you probably think they lie about almost everything all the time, right? And yeah, perhaps I would not understand or accept that the thingie in the LROC photo was the LM descant stage either, if I was as paranoid as you are. But luckily I can look at all the available information and base my conclusions on that. You can not, so you must have a lot more limited options when trying to figure out what is reallly going on in space exploration.

I guess I have an advantage, huh? Lucky me!

























posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Yes!

ETs are the reason for secrecy.

SECRET SPACE (Vol-2) Alien Invasion-

PART: 1 of 4

Google Video Link







[edit on 10-2-2010 by Tek-Neek55]

[edit on 10-2-2010 by Tek-Neek55]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 



I posted another LROC photo where it is rather, well... obvious that the thing we see is the LM descent stage,

obvious ? your joking right ?

there is nothing obvious about this that says Lunar Module !







if you take into account all the available information about the Apollo 11 landing site. (And not just crop out some part of the photo, for instance, like you did, haha.)

you just ain't getting it are you ?

the picture is of a KNOWN landing site and i agree it's probably the LM despite the fact that i can't really tell what it is because the object is BLURRY !!






You can not take information provided by NASA into account


how ironic, you say i can't take information provided by NASA into account but i have just told you i believe we landed on the Moon and i am acknowledging that is the Apollo spacecraft in the images !!! WHAT !?

please due tell me again how i am not accepting any info from NASA and not deeming it something credible. that's what your implying right ?






But luckily I can look at all the available information and base my conclusions on that.


base what conclusions ?
that we are seeing the Apollo landing site in a picture that is marked as the Apollo landing site ?

WOW what a revelation !!! who woulda thunk it ? lucky you




if I was as paranoid as you are


so you post a bunch of nonsense and i showed everyone you don't have a clue what your talking about and now all you have left is personal attacks to use as your argument ?


are you mad at me ? or are you just being obtuse for no good reason ?









[edit on 10-2-2010 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
do you guy's really think a Executive order is going to mention the word obfuscation and imply that images have that introduced ?
If I am included in the "you guy's" then I can tell you that I wasn't expecting it to be explicitly said on the executive order or any other official document that any images considered important for security (or whatever) reasons should be obfuscated, but that could have been said by using other words.

For example, how is it said (in whatever executive order or something like that) that published documents (like those published after a FOIA request) should have secret parts taken out?



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 




you just ain't getting it are you ?
the pic is a KNOWN landing site and i agree it's probably the LM despite the fact that i can't really tell what it is because the object is BLURRY !!


I'm not getting it cause I'm stoopid, remember? (Give me my cookie, damn it!)

Anyway, the object is still much clearer in that LROC image than the dark dot you posted. It is a better image, taken from lover altitude and it has better resolution. Yes the object is blurry, but if you really make an effort, perhaps you can see that the object at least resembles the Apollo descent stage a little? Just a tiny bit? Even though it is blurry? See, I also agree with you that it is blurry. I have no idea why you seem to be upset. I'm not even sure why we are having this discussion.



how ironic you say i can't take information provided by NASA into account but i have just told you i believe we landed on the Moon and i am acknowledging that is the Apollo spacecraft in the images !!! WHAT !?


I only joked about the Apollo moon landing hoax. I thought that was pretty obvious. You know, since I said I was just kidding. And please don't scream. I hate it when people scream.




base what conclusions ? that we are seeing the Apollo landing site in the image when we already know the location and the image is showing the BLURRY objects in that location ?

wow what a revelation !!! who woulda thunk it ?


I somehow got the impression you didn't quite believe that the image showed the objects left behind at the Apollo 11 landing sites. Perhaps all the laughing smilies and exclamation marks in your posts confused me a bit.



so you post a bunch of nonsense and i showed everyone you don't have a clue what your talking about so now all you have is personal attacks to use as your argument ?

are you mad at me ?


It must be very nice for you that you think you have showed everyone that I don't have a clue what I am talking about. Anyway, perhaps I should have used the word "suspicious" or "distrusting" instead of "paranoid". Sorry about that. I am not a fan of personal attacks.

I'm not mad at you. But I still want my cookie.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
Also, i can understand the principles involved.


you've still got to tell me about your 4d working screen which seems to also have an inbuilt angular measuring device apart from other things...







Originally posted by Exuberant1






Originally posted by easynow





you guys are just great...... thanks for all that laugh



lunacognita....... deep bow 2 u....



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



how is it said (in whatever executive order or something like that) that published documents (like those published after a FOIA request) should have secret parts taken out?


well ArMaP i would have to go back and read it all again but i will venture a guess that it will not specifically indicate anywhere in the document that anything released to the public should be altered, masked or use any methods of obfuscation to hide something.

it's more likely that it will imply that all information pertaining to the projects be categorized accordingly into the proper security classifications. i'm just guessing here so don't quote me on it and i didn't really think you thought the word obfuscation would actually be mentioned in such a document but i was somewhat entertained because Arbitrageur actually went searching for it.






reply to post by ziggystar60
 


alright ! the ziggystar60 i know and admire is back !!

wow for a second there i thought somebody hacked into your account and was pretending to be you !

you know i don't think that about you ziggy, i was just not getting what you was on about and i guess my joke detecting abilities have been diminished from being on guard from all the attacks i have encountered in this thread. i dunno but you know i always appreciate your input and if i have in any way misunderstood your intentions and said anything i shouldn't have then please accept my apologies.

here is a cookie but you better get it quick

critteristic.com...

[edit on 10-2-2010 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by ArMaP
 



how is it said (in whatever executive order or something like that) that published documents (like those published after a FOIA request) should have secret parts taken out?


well ArMaP i would have to go back and read it all again but i will venture a guess that it will not specifically indicate anywhere in the document that anything released to the public should be altered, masked or use any methods of obfuscation to hide something.

it's more likely that it will imply that all information pertaining to the projects be categorized accordingly into the proper security classifications. i'm just guessing here so don't quote me on it and i didn't really think you thought the word obfuscation would actually be mentioned in such a document but i was somewhat entertained because Arbitrageur actually went searching for it.


I was researching LCs claim that "the footage they showed the public would have to be, by Presidential Executive Order (10501), obfuscated to hide the truth from us".


Originally posted by LunaCognita
I mean, it is not like NASA has any reason to lie or cover anything up....oh, wait... I forgot about that pesky Executive Order 10501 that FORCED the space agency to lie and conceal the truth about what they found up there on the Moon in the interests of maintaining national and global stability. That ugly fact means that IF NASA found evidence of ET life on the Moon, the footage they showed the public would have to be, by Presidential Executive Order, obfuscated to hide the truth from us, right?


Notwithstanding the fact that it doesn't contain the word "obfuscate", I couldn't find any interpretation relating to anything like partial obfuscation in that executive order. They can classify films, so that we can't see them at all, but that's not the same as what LC is claiming regarding partial obfuscation. So if there is anything in that executive order which relates in any way to partial obfuscation even without mentioning those words, someone will have to point it out to me. And if it's not in there, then why claim that it is?

The executive order DOES support ArMaP's interpretation that "all information pertaining to the projects be categorized accordingly into the proper security classifications." Again they can hide films from us, but as specified in that executive order, it's all or nothing; it's classified, or it isn't. And if it says otherwise somewhere in that document, please correct me and point it out where it says otherwise.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



I was researching LCs claim that "the footage they showed the public would have to be, by Presidential Executive Order (10501), obfuscated to hide the truth from us".


we knew that but the reason i found it funny is because you can't seem to be able to read between the lines and comprehend that a Executive order is not going to mention anything about altering, masking or use any methods of obfuscation to hide something from the public.

let's imagine just for a second that there was something on the Moon that they wanted to keep secret because of National Security interest.

would NASA be able to withhold every video or image from the public taken on or around the Moon ? i don't see how they could and if whatever it is they found on the Moon was in a top secret classification , yet they still had to release some or most of the imagery captured by Apollo and other space instruments what would would they do ?

in my opinion they would do exactly what LunaCognita is telling you and that is, obfuscation of the imagery to keep anyone from discovering something we aren't supposed to know about.

it's a very simple concept and i find it hard to believe that you couldn't figure that out just because it doesn't come right out and say this is what they would do in the Executive order.

i also find it quite interesting that your hell bent on disproving what LunaCognita has proposed but could care less about spending the time to prove the claims you have made in this thread.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Great stuff Easynow,

I suppose I should tell one way to remove a UFO/anomaly from a space image and get away with it by building a plausible rationale into your censorship.


Needed: 1 space image in need of censorship and at least two sources for image distribution.

What to do: First you remove the anomaly by blacking it out. Then you carefully damage the image near the censored anomaly in the altered area and then pass the image on to one distribution point (Source 1). This is how you will build in a plausible rational which justifies your actions.

Now that the censored/damaged image has been sent to a distribution point, you may release the censored image to any other distribution points that you choose. Should anyone suspect censorship, they will be directed to Source 1 for a plausible excuse ( if you have done as directed, your excuse is quite plausible at this point; the image was altered for aesthetic reasons due to damage).

Do this for every space anomaly you determine to be in need of a censoring...

*Along with providing a plausible and acceptable reason for censorship, your selective damage serves to alert your properly cleared peers to the location of these anomalies in the uncensored images that are held in the archives.

These methods are extant, do not post them on the internet...





[edit on 11-2-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
it's a very simple concept and i find it hard to believe that you couldn't figure that out just because it doesn't come right out and say this is what they would do in the Executive order.

i also find it quite interesting that your hell bent on disproving what LunaCognita has proposed but could care less about spending the time to prove the claims you have made in this thread.


I don't see how you can accuse me of any bias against Luna Cognita when I already said his theory about the standup EVA is the best conspiracy theory I've ever read.

What I'm hell bent on is getting to the truth and it doesn't matter to me who is in the way of that even if it's a mod or a site owner.

If you want to say the government can do all kinds of crazy stuff, maybe you're right, maybe they can. But when you cite a specific executive order, don't be surprised if somebody actually reads the order like I did. That order gets so specific as to talk about the type of combination locks which are acceptable to secure the information, including how many numbers must be in the sequence of the combination to the lock! So with those kind of specifics in the executive order, there's just no fit for saying that order supports the type of partial obfuscation being discussed.

It would be better to claim that there's a secret order we don't even know about to do that.

And I've already admitted I haven't proven the film curl is the cause of the defocus gradient. I can't prove it without access to the NASA film. And I did search for examples and instead found what LunaCognita described as good storage conditions for the film may have actually added to the film curl problem according to this Kodak reference:

www.scribd.com...


Note: "At low relative humidities, the emulsion layer contracts more than the base, generally producing positive curl."

NASA keeps films in a freezer. There's good reason for this, the cold slows down the aging process of the film and makes it last longer. However, such cold temperatures can hold very little humidity. Under low humidity conditions, according to that Kodak reference, the emulsion will shrink more than the film base, exacerbating the amount of curl. They also show what the curl looks like in the sketches. So once again, if you focus in the center like the film scanners do, then you can get some idea from that sketch of the defocus gradient which you might expect. The film scanner can limit the curl effect, but if the film is moving through the film scanner it can't be completely flattened as there needs to be some clearance to allow the movement of the film without damaging the film or the emulsion layer.

I also found another possible reason for some fuzziness, if the films used were not the originals but duplicates:

apollo.sese.asu.edu...


Due to the historical significance of the original flight films, typically only duplicate (2nd or 3rd generation) film products are currently available for study and used to make prints.
I have no idea if they used the original films or not for the conversion, I would have thought so, but I'm not sure if that conversion is what renders them "nearly untouched" as opposed to "completely untouched":

www.nasa.gov...



The complete photographic record from the Apollo Program has remained nearly untouched in a freezer at NASA’s Johnson Space Center—until now.

Forty years after the first human being walked on the moon, high-resolution scans of original Apollo flight films are being made available to researchers and the general public on the Internet. The digital archive is being created through a collaboration between the Information Resources Directorate at JSC and Arizona State University.

This project marks the first time that digital scans have been made of the original lunar flight film returned by the Apollo missions. The digital archive includes photos taken from lunar orbit and the lunar surface. The most detailed images from lunar orbit show rocks and other surface features.


They aren't all that specific about the 16mm DAC film versus other film, so I don't know if this means we'll eventually get newer, higher resolution scans of the original 16mm DAC films or not, but that could be one possible interpretation of that article.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


So....You still haven't found any example images to corroborate your speculative theory?

Instead of trying to convince us that you do not have to - perhaps you should spend some time searching for a corroborative image.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 
I have spent time searching but 16mm footage is hard to find, and conversions of 16mm film that's been stored in a freezer for decades is even harder to find.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Hmmm,

Have you tried with other similiar films?

If you could obtain a good frame and a frame from a curled real, you would be able to demonstrate the effects and we could all make our observations.

Sure it would not be DAC 16mm, but the presentation of such a comparative example (or two) would be quite useful in determining how similiar the effect is to what we are seeing with LunaCognita's footage and whether or not the obfuscation in the Apollo 16 mm foot could be attributed to film curl.

Basically, you'd be establishing a precedent - and a demonstration of this using comparative examples would strengthen your argument until you can acquire more pertinent film for analysis. This would prove to everyone with eyes that this does indeed happen - and they would not be able to deny that after seeing it for themselves.

Not an argument winner, but it is definitely an argument strengthener that might serve you until you can get the things you need to deliver the finishing blow.



Edit: Plus now that I've suggested it, you don't have to worry about Easynow and myself calling you out about using other films to demonstrate the effect that film curl can have.




[edit on 11-2-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


thanks Exuberant1,

the phrase "perpetual denial" has become more relevant than ever before !





by building a plausible rationale into your censorship


thanks for the Plausible deniability recipe and i am thinking your probably not far off, if not completely on target with that process. but oh wait just a minute ! it's not in the Executive order so it can't be true !!!




just so i am sure we are on the same page, is this what you meant by "censorship" ?



easynowsufoblog.blogspot.com...



Plus now that I've suggested it, you don't have to worry about Easynow and myself calling you out about using other films to demonstrate the effect that film curl can have.


10-4 on that
, any example of this film curl would be interesting to see and i am still amazed that despite the fact there being a general claim or consensus that the phenomena is very well known by many, nobody can find any examples of it. maybe there are some but they don't look the same so from a skeptics POV it wouldn't be a good idea to post them ?



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


thanks Exuberant1,

the phrase "perpetual denial" has become more relevant than ever before !


by building a plausible rationale into your censorship


thanks for the Plausible deniability recipe and i am thinking your probably not far off, if not completely on target with that process. but oh wait just a minute ! it's not in the Executive order so it can't be true !!!



i second that.......


"prosaic mundaneties" gotta be my favourite.........


btw.... i thought this might interest you......


Ordering Information for Items not available from the NASA Center

*cough* *cough*...... you've got to make sure not to cause any "undue burden".....


The Law: Section 508


[edit on 11/2/10 by mcrom901]



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join